D&D 5E Yes to factionalism. No to racism.

[Marandahir]

My point is, sometimes a PC wants to play a dwarf. Maybe they like the mechanics, or they thought Gimli was cool, maybe they just like the default dwarf. Should I still have to create a dozen subcultures for every race a PC might play, or I want to include on my world map? If I want to include a Shire-type community of halflings, I shouldn't also have to include 5 other halfling cultures to balance it out. Especially if most of the different cultures in the setting are human anyway.

You don't have to!

Are you making a world map for a main established setting that WotC or another big TTRPG is publishing? Or (more likely) is it for your home game?

Because really this is about how do we fix the core assumptions of the game, not how do we fix your particular game. I see nothing wrong with your game. Nobody is Harrison-Burgeroning individual D&D tables. They're not coming for your Dwarves or forcing you to include 6 different types of Halflings.

The idea is for WotC and other big name publishers to succinctly provide examples of different factions or cultures that would be useful to use instead of leaning into stereotypes in their core rulebooks.

This is about adding value. Even if we only have Stout and Lightfoot Halflings in the PHB, let us know about different example cultures of Halflings in the book too. Maybe do what the PHB currently does for Humans for all other peoples, and generate up some example nations of Halflings and Elves and Dwarves each that are stark contrast to one another, despite being the same sublineage. Or sure, add a new factional layer that doesn't require you to be a specific lineage but reflects your attitudes towards the world or your background. MAYBE even flesh out the background system into something far meatier than in the current rules. A Soldier Halfling and and Guild Artisan Halfling had very different life experiences before adventuring. Maybe ASIs could even be tied to backgrounds or, heck, thrown into classes like WotC playtested back in D&D Next.

 

[Oofta]

On the internet, 99.5% of numbers are made up to make points sound good.

Nine out of ten D&D players approve this message.

 

[Vaalingrade]

This would support the broadest base of players, and keep the game accessible without alienating anyone.

Keeping some of that stuff WAS alienating people. People in the core demographic.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But it was not, at least for me, the intent.

I agree that it wasn't the intent, but it was manifestly the effect.

And that's the problem for me. I don't think we're seeing some conscious, considered decision to draw back like a snail into it's shell re monocultures. I think it's just "what WotC has done", repeatedly, and without considering. There are number of elements retained through editions like that - not intentional sacred cows, just things they keep doing.

I suspect DND2024 may be the first edition where they don't do that.

For that, I think you might need to blame popular culture and the LotR movies, actually, rather than the game itself.

I don't think so myself, because 3E is 2000 and Fellowship is 2001. So causally that doesn't work.

But culture cannot be left out to describe a race, especially when you want to relate to the popular culture tropes so that beginners can make the link to the cool things that they might want to play.

And the solution is not to revert to tedious monocultures, imho, but to offer more choice, and to offer choices that aren't race-tied even if they're race-associated. Like you want to be an Elf from the big city, you pick the Big City faction or whatever. You want to be an Elf from the Elvendark Forest, you pick the Elvendark Forest faction. You want to be a gnome raised by the elves of the Elvendark Forest, you do likewise. Sure 90% of the population of the Elvendark Forest is elves, but you're choosing to have an unusual PC. The player who hates unusual PCs can pick his Human Fighter with the Big City background or whatever. You don't need that many factions as generic/default either. Maybe you have a Riverboat faction, and 75% of Riverboat folk are hobbits, but obviously other people could be part of that. Or there's the Ravaging Horde faction, and maybe most of the people in that are Orcs, or maybe in a different setting they're Elves, or whatever.

Y'know, like in Taladas, back in 1989, when the great horde of rampaging Steppe tribes was primarily Elves and Half-Elves.

 

[Marandahir]

I agree that it wasn't the intent, but it was manifestly the effect.

And that's the problem for me. I don't think we're seeing some conscious, considered decision to draw back like a snail into it's shell re monocultures. I think it's just "what WotC has done", repeatedly, and without considering. There are number of elements retained through editions like that - not intentional sacred cows, just things they keep doing.

I suspect DND2024 may be the first edition where they don't do that.

I don't think so myself, because 3E is 2000 and Fellowship is 2001. So causally that doesn't work.

And the solution is not to revert to tedious monocultures, imho, but to offer more choice, and to offer choices that aren't race-tied even if they're race-associated. Like you want to be an Elf from the big city, you pick the Big City faction or whatever. You want to be an Elf from the Elvendark Forest, you pick the Elvendark Forest faction. You want to be a gnome raised by the elves of the Elvendark Forest, you do likewise. Sure 90% of the population of the Elvendark Forest is elves, but you're choosing to have an unusual PC. The player who hates unusual PCs can pick his Human Fighter with the Big City background or whatever. You don't need that many factions as generic/default either. Maybe you have a Riverboat faction, and 75% of Riverboat folk are hobbits, but obviously other people could be part of that. Or there's the Ravaging Horde faction, and maybe most of the people in that are Orcs, or maybe in a different setting they're Elves, or whatever.

Y'know, like in Taladas, back in 1989, when the great horde of rampaging Steppe tribes was primarily Elves and Half-Elves.

Nods. Mithrendain, the Autumn Citadel of the Feywild in 4e, was at least home to Eladrin, (Wood) Elves, Gnomes, and Human/Half-elf Tuathan, even if it was an Autumn Eladrin-dominated culture. These all had a shared Mithrendain culture that was at odds with other Feywild citadels. And the Svirfneblin of the Feydark had a completely different culture from the Svirneblin of the Underdark and the Gnomes of both above and below the dark. There's a wealth of material WotC can draw upon from their own archives just to cite as examples. They've already done this a bit. They just need to go a bit further to finish the touchdown.

 

[cowpie]

Keeping some of that stuff WAS alienating people. People in the core demographic.

I dunno -- there's a lot of people in the core demographic, and each of them is an individual with individual opinions. I'd like to see an actual study of the demographics, with accurate data of what people think.

 

[John R Davis]

Mod Note:

You just had to dip into RW politics with a dog whistle? Not advisable.

Yeah. That was weak of me. Thread going nowhere anyways

 

[CleverNickName]

...seriously, dude?

 

[Maxperson]

And not all Dark elves are like Eöl and Maeglin.

Of course not. There's also Drizzt.

 

[Scribe]

Okay, so we can all agrre, Eberron should be the default setting for D&D right?

Does it have Undead with free will? Asking for a friend...